NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cowan v R [2015] NSWCCA 118 Hearing dates: 29 April 2015 Date of orders: 29 May 2015 Decision date: 29 May 2015 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1] Simpson J at [4] Bellew J at [9] Decision: Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is allowed. The sentence imposed upon the applicant in the District Court is quashed. In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment commencing on 3 September 2013 and expiring on 2 July 2015 with a balance of term of 1 year and 2 months imprisonment commencing on 3 July 2015 and expiring on 2 September 2016. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – where applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence (larceny) – offending in the nature of a "ram raid" – evidence before the sentencing judge that the applicant had a mental disability – no submissions made to the sentencing judge regarding the principles applicable to the sentencing of mentally ill offenders – sentencing judge delivered ex tempore remarks without making reference to such principles – obligation on the part of the sentencing judge to consider that issue notwithstanding the absence of submissions made to him – error established Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Cases Cited: Baxter v R [2007] NSWCCA 237; (2007) 173 A Crim R 284 Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Elturk v R [2014] NSWCCA 61 Gommesen v R [2012] NSWCCA 226 Kentwell v R [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 88 ALJR 947 McLaren v R [2012] NSWCCA 284 Martin v R [2015] NSWCCA 6 R v Campbell [2014] NSWCCA 102 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40 Warner aka Jeremy Pachenko v R [2013] NSWCCA 10 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Glen Eric Cowan - Applicant Crown - Respondent Representation: Counsel: Ms H Cox - Applicant Mr P Ingram SC – Respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate